When a Party Vastly Exceeds their WBL

[Karsh]

Tonight in my gaming group, we managed to disarm an assassin of four of her weapons and ran her off inside of an enemy castle, then we grabbed the weapons we'd made her drop and we ran out of the castle. The party consists of 5 level 5 characters, and we made off with a Short Sword of Subtlety, an Assassin's Dagger, a +2 Defending Short Sword, and a +2 Hand Crossbow, catapulting our party wealth into the stratosphere. This game takes place in Dragonlance, so there's not an abundance of magic items to trade out for it, but we literally cannot make use of all of these weapons (especially considering we also already had a +2 dagger and a +1 Keen Longsword)...

Obviously, DM did not intend for this to happen. So, my question to you all is... how exactly should we anticipate the WBL being equalized against our now walking-armory adventuring group?

[Mewtarthio]

Rust monsters, disjunctions, sundering, the usual. If your DM's nice, you might be able to donate the excess wealth to an Assassin's Guild in exchange for political power (perfectly in-character, since influence is as good as money and you weren't using the stuff anyway). In fact, if it's in your character to deal with any sort of stealth-oriented organization (that is to say, you're not a Knight or Paladin or anyone else morally opposed to subtlety), you should suggest something like that in-character. You could even request a Knowledge (geography) or Knowledge (local) check from the DM to locate such an organization. Better that than any of the alternatives I mentioned in the first sentence.

[Nattypat]

I agree, DMs always love it when their players are willing to work with them in fixing problems that happen in game. It always warms my heart when one of my players shows enough care to help me fix my game for the better.

[tyckspoon]

That assassin was carrying too many weapons (well, too many magic weapons.) My prediction for the first attempt to relieve you of them is that same assassin; expect her to find out where you're staying and attempt to steal her armory back while you're asleep.

I agree with Mewthartio about disposing of the extra wealth on your own terms. Find somebody important you want to think well of your group and make a gift of the extra gear.

[Chronos]

(that is to say, you're not a Knight or Paladin or anyone else morally opposed to subtlety)

Paladins might (or might not) find subtlety distasteful, but they won't (or shouldn't) find it morally offensive. They will, though, find assassins morally offensive.

One caveat, though: The very possession of such weapons might be illegal, in which case, depending on who the party offloads them to (whether for money or intangibles), they might have to answer some awkward questions.

[MrNexx]

Alternate suggestion: Let them keep it, but they don't find much new until their L catches up with their WB.

[Karsh]

Well, one of our characters is a VoP monk, so a fifth of the value is being given away to charity. The DM has also just posted a post on our forum that we can only get around 40% due to the fact that there's not a big market for magic items in Nordmaar and there's only one magic item shop in the town we're in, so that also cuts down on the amount of gold we can get for it.

The problem with giving it away is that we're in the War of the Lance and really have no allies aside from the people of Nordmaar who were responsible for giving us that Keen Longsword, so...

The DM intended the Assassin to rough us up and get overwhelmed before fleeing, but she got stunned in the first round and dropped her short swords, leading to our Warlock/Marshal repeatedly disarming her with his spiked chain (oddly enough, his build makes no sense, but he's one of the most useful characters in the party).

This WBL does, however, make up a little bit for the fact that my character is basically a dulled down Aristocrat with magic items (Good/Neutral gods haven't been discovered yet and I'm playing a cleric, so while I have the Blue Crystal Staff, I can't do much else).

[Toliudar]

Also, to be honest, none of those new items are win buttons. The offense of the melee minded is augmented slightly - which means that they'll be keeping up just a little bit better with the spellcasters, just as you're reaching levels where the casters start to shine. IMO, not a big deal.

[herrhauptmann]

Back to the idea of donating them in exchange for influence/favor.
How about donating the 'evil' type weapons to a church of paladine, or a group of paladins, and requesting that they be destroyed/redeemed for the good of the balance.

[Karsh]

Because there are no good churches; we're in the War of the Lance.

[Mewtarthio]

I'm not familiar with Dragonlance, but if there are no Good gods in the world, I think it's a safe bet that there's no stigma against using poison and the like. At least, somebody you want on your side is bound to be interested. In the meantime, I'm not sure what a Short Sword of Subtlety does, but the Assassin's Dagger is pretty situational (it provides a bonus to poison DCs, right?), so that's not too overpowering. As for the other things--hey, they're a nice treat until you get rid of them. Remember, one way or another, the DM's bound to change circumstances such that you no longer have your goodies. It's up to him whether they get arbitrarily taken from you, or whether you end up in a situation where you get something out of it--and, quite frankly, you deserve a bonus for getting the items. Remind him of that.

[tyckspoon]

I'm not familiar with Dragonlance, but if there are no Good gods in the world, I think it's a safe bet that there's no stigma against using poison and the like. At least, somebody you want on your side is bound to be interested. In the meantime, I'm not sure what a Short Sword of Subtlety does, but the Assassin's Dagger is pretty situational (it provides a bonus to poison DCs, right?), so that's not too overpowering. As for the other things--hey, they're a nice treat until you get rid of them. Remember, one way or another, the DM's bound to change circumstances such that you no longer have your goodies. It's up to him whether they get arbitrarily taken from you, or whether you end up in a situation where you get something out of it--and, quite frankly, you deserve a bonus for getting the items. Remind him of that.

(Short)sword of Subtlety gives an extra +4 to hit and damage when making a sneak attack, which is nice for the rogue, if there is one. The Assassin's dagger increases the DC of a Death Attack; if there's no Assassin in the party, it's functionally just a +2 dagger (still useful, every character should have at least one dagger stuck in their boot/belt/wherever.) ..huh. You've got 5 characters, and you can't make use of some weapons that are individually at or only a little bit above level-appropriate? I wouldn't be surprised if nobody had the right proficiency for the hand crossbow, but the other things shouldn't be hard to find a home for.

[Kantolin]

Alternate suggestion: Let them keep it, but they don't find much new until their L catches up with their WB.

I like this idea. It's what I use when I'm DMing.

[Karsh]

These weapons are nearly individually wealth appropriate? The combined value of the four weapons we confiscated is in the area of 64,000 gp... A party of 5 level 5 characters should have 45,000 gp total.

It's not that good gods don't exist, in Dragonlance during the War of the Lance, the Good and Neutral gods have just withdrawn from the world and don't grant spells.

As for people being able to use them, we have a Fighter/Rogue with feats devoted to fighting with a Scythe, a Warlock/Marshal with feats devoted to fighting with a Spiked Chain, a VoP monk, a Rogue/Bard who's using the Sword of Subtlety, and myself, a Cleric (who, without turning or spellcasting, is actually worse than the Aristocrat class) with only Simple Weapon proficiencies... so yeah.

[Closet_Skeleton]

There's always the old Drow gear ploy

[Karsh]

What, where everything is poisoned?

[Azerian Kelimon]

Or it requires you are a drow to use it.

[Vectner]

I had a similar problem when I created a dagger chucking fighter as an assassin that was after the party. He had dozens of daggers, one was +3 a couple +2 and the rest masterwork. He also had a +3 chain shirt and Gauntlets of Ogre power. He was supposed to kill the NPC sister of the half-orc barbarian and escape.

Well the barbarian raged, of course, and was able to outrun the assassin and catch up to him. A good crit with the great axe and that blade chucker was down. and I was in a pickle.

The party was lvl 4 at the time and there was no way I was going to let them get +3 items.

I used the rage to my advantage, and had the barbarian keep hacking at the guy until he was a pulp and his armor and items were in shreds. By the time the rest of the party caught up to the barbarian, only the assassins' hands were left unscathed. The party collected up the rest of the daggers that they could find, about a half dozen masterwork. The barbarian got the gauntlets, the ranger whined about the chain shirt, but the party made off with about 1800gp in daggers, so I call that fair.

[Aquillion]

I think Closet_Skeleton meant 'turns to dust / goes nonfunctional permanently when exposed to sunlight'.

[JadedDM]

There are no Drow in Dragonlance, though.

[tainsouvra]

Obviously, DM did not intend for this to happen. So, my question to you all is... how exactly should we anticipate the WBL being equalized against our now walking-armory adventuring group?

A low-level group just game into possession of a large amount of rare and precious items without also getting a place that is safe to store them against foes that would consider those weapons worth fighting over, and with at least one of those foes having a strong suspicion that they have them and knowing how to identify them. Enemy groups should be trying to take your stuff any minute now.

[Kaelik]

I used the rage to my advantage, and had the barbarian keep hacking at the guy until he was a pulp and his armor and items were in shreds.

When in doubt, take control of the PC away from the Player. What classy DMing.

I'd rather be lied to and be deprived of loot then not be allowed to control my own character and be deprived of loot.

[Craig1f]

When in doubt, take control of the PC away from the Player. What classy DMing.

I'd rather be lied to and be deprived of loot then not be allowed to control my own character and be deprived of loot.

I think it's completely reasonable for the DM to take control of a raging barbarian. The players tell the DM what they intend to do, but the DM describes to the players what happened; especially after an assassin just tried to take a shot at the Barbarian's sister. Self-control is not something a raging barbarian should have.

We were in an amnesia fog one time. We didn't know it yet, until I said "hey, can anyone tell which way is north?" and the DM said "you hear Oz say, 'hey, can anyone ... uh"

It's also highly dependent on the playing style of the person playing the character. In my last campaign, we had a VERY experienced player playing a frenzied berserker. I realize most people have a rule against FB's, but we needed a character that strong to face hordes of demons.

Well, when he entered a frenzy, he didn't do any of this "um, let's see, how can I avoid hurting you ... I guess I'll try to grapple him instead of swinging my axe". No sir, he said "Raaawwr, I start raging also, take 5 steps into the middle of the group, go full power attack, and start with a a full-attack on the Wizard. Does a 30 hit?" He was out for our blood, and had no compulsions against trying to take advantage of his great cleave on the entire party.

Fortunately, the DM decided that we had to roll initiative before he got our attack because of the "raaaaawwwr", I won, and put up a wall of stone.

[holywhippet]

It's not that good gods don't exist, in Dragonlance during the War of the Lance, the Good and Neutral gods have just withdrawn from the world and don't grant spells.

Somewhat correct IMO. Basically in the distant past (several hundred years I think) the good Gods were kind of annoyed at their followers. They'd won the war against the forces of evil, but were now busy killing, enslaving or destroying anything they considered to be evil. Unfortunately their definition of evil was basically anything that they didn't like or understand - arcane magic, dwarves etc. were all on the kill list. The elves were some of the worst offenders, a number of them wore members of the clergy, but they had no belief in the Gods at all - they just wanted the chance to arrange things to their liking. The Kingpriest of Istar who was the highest ranking member of the good clergy prayed to the good gods demanding the power to completely cleanse evil from the world. The Gods weren't happy about this since they believe that a balance between good and evil must be maintained for stability. So they extracted all of their good and loyal clerics, then they dropped a mountain of fire on the Kingpriest.

This event became known as the cataclysm. The blast was so hard it reshaped the world - even the seas changed position. The remains of Istar ended up at the bottom of the ocean and other port cities wound up landlocked. With all the clerics gone there were no faith in the Gods at all. People assumed the Gods had abandoned them completely - a group called the Seekers eventually arose who claimed to be seeking new Gods to worship.

The head of the evil Gods, Takhisis had previously been banished from the world by the legendary Knight Huma. However the desecration of one of her old shrines gave her a crack with which to affect the world through. She began setting plans in motion, building up an army in secret and gathering clerics to her cause.

The good and neutral gods are still there, they just don't have anyone with the faith or inclination to pray to them.

[tainsouvra]

I think it's completely reasonable for the DM to take control of a raging barbarian.

While you are welcome to houserule that in, there is nothing in the rules about the player not being allowed to play his character and one rule that would unequivocally prevent what happened from being legal. Remember, the rules specifically permit the barbarian to end his rage at will, which means that the DM making the barbarian not able to take control of his actions again after felling his opponent is completely contrary to the ability's description. At a bare minimum, the player is completely justified in saying "my character stops raging". Additionally, it is generally bad form for the DM to take control of a player's character when it isn't strictly necessary. In effect, it's using Rule 0 to stop a player from playing the game.

[Kaelik]

Well, when he entered a frenzy, he didn't do any of this "um, let's see, how can I avoid hurting you ... I guess I'll try to grapple him instead of swinging my axe". No sir, he said "Raaawwr, I start raging also, take 5 steps into the middle of the group, go full power attack, and start with a a full-attack on the Wizard. Does a 30 hit?" He was out for our blood, and had no compulsions against trying to take advantage of his great cleave on the entire party.

Fortunately, the DM decided that we had to roll initiative before he got our attack because of the "raaaaawwwr", I won, and put up a wall of stone.

That's exactly my point. Trust the Players to RP their characters. He's a Raging Barbarian, he shouldn't be saying "I look through his pockets!"

I've played many characters that wouldn't have bothered looting the Assassin at all, giving the DM time to have people on the street run over and grab things from his body before the rest of the party showed up.

My favorite is a current Wizard who won't even touch anything unless he thinks it's magic or related to.

He has so far touched:
A staff (given to the Sorcerer)
A spellbook (kept)
A few Component pouches (mostly just glanced inside and then dropped right there)
A wand (given to the Cleric)

Everytime he kills some thief or something, he just leaves the body. He refuses to make touch attacks (doesn't use any of those spells) because he would have to touch something mundane. He even has a Fortifying Bedroll so that he doesn't have to sleep in something mundane (no MMM yet) and he flie with Overland Flight so he doesn't touch the ground.

[Vectner]

While you are welcome to houserule that in, there is nothing in the rules about the player not being allowed to play his character and one rule that would unequivocally prevent what happened from being legal. Remember, the rules specifically permit the barbarian to end his rage at will, which means that the DM making the barbarian not able to take control of his actions again after felling his opponent is completely contrary to the ability's description. At a bare minimum, the player is completely justified in saying "my character stops raging". Additionally, it is generally bad form for the DM to take control of a player's character when it isn't strictly necessary. In effect, it's using Rule 0 to stop a player from playing the game.

Just to clarify, the assasin did succeed in killing the barbarian's sister. The barbarian didn't really want to stop. The players never knew what the guy actually had, and DM's are DM's. Why is it that there is so much "it's not fair" crap with 3rd edition players? The rules are a just a guidline, the important thing is that everyone have fun, not who wins.

[Leicontis]

The party I ran for a couple years got high treasure values on a regular basis - if they'd actually kept all of it, they would have made WBL look like NPC gear value. However, one of their biggest rewards, that for their very first quest, was a small fortified manor house and associated outbuildings, etc. By game end, they were well on their way to having a small keep/castle with a town and farmland growing around it. Much of the treasure they got just got poured into construction.

Long story short, real estate can be an awesome cash sink - it gets the money out of the PCs gear, while still allowing them to do something fun with it.

[tainsouvra]

Just to clarify, the assasin did succeed in killing the barbarian's sister. The barbarian didn't really want to stop. The players never knew what the guy actually had, and DM's are DM's. Why is it that there is so much "it's not fair" crap with 3rd edition players? The rules are a just a guidline, the important thing is that everyone have fun, not who wins.

It would have been unfair in second edition, had that ability existed, just as much as it is in this edition. I would know, I played 2E for years. Don't pull the edition-war crap, it's a red herring and a poor one.

The real issue is this: Roleplayers play their characters because it's fun to do so. Things that don't allow roleplayers to play their characters are not as much fun. If the important thing is that everyone have fun, not who wins, then why would the DM not allow a player to play his character? Especially when he does it in a way that the player is completely justified in contesting, and when the DM's purpose is to avoid letting the party win too much? It's exactly the opposite of what your little rant espouses.

Just answer me this, a simple straight answer:
When is it ok for the DM to take control of a PC in a way that is explicitly forbidden by the rules in order to penalize the party for doing something completely reasonable?
My answer to that is "never", which is why I disagree with the idea that a PC becomes an NPC when he rages.

[Kaelik]

Just to clarify, the assasin did succeed in killing the barbarian's sister. The barbarian didn't really want to stop. The players never knew what the guy actually had, and DM's are DM's. Why is it that there is so much "it's not fair" crap with 3rd edition players? The rules are a just a guidline, the important thing is that everyone have fun, not who wins.

Except nobody complained about losing the items or "it not being fair." I specifically said that in that situation I would prefer the DM saying, "The dagger melts in your hand/it's an illusion/ something as stupid as he has no weapons" over saying, "I now control you character! He is mine to do as I please!"

What the DM did was declare that that Player was no longer allowed to play. He had no control over anything, and his job was to sit in the corner for five minutes. Yes he then got to play again, but that doesn't make it okay to take it away in the first place.